*Bennett appears to ask Kneeland whether he has met “good faith efforts” to stay in Seattle just six months after buying the team.

“In doing the work we have done and now advising Washington leadership of our findings and inviting them to actively participate in a response – have we met our obligation of ‘good faith best efforts?’ Legal questions.”

*Lawrence presents Exhibit 324: An e-mail from Nov 9, 2006, from Kneeland to Bennett on Initiative 91, and Kneeland brings up the “good faith effort” clause signed with the Schultz group.

Kneeland: “I continue to be not only disappointed but also dismayed by the sheer lack of opposition to this initiative. The question of the hour is what constitutes a good faith effort.”

*Lawrence presents Exhibit 253: A July 19, 2007 Bennett e-mail to the PBC owners — Bennett said he would give the state until Oct. 2007 to construct a new arena.

Bennett wrote: “In some respects, the tactics we are executing in Seattle tomorrow are part of our strategy to lay the groundwork to explore several options, including relocation.”

*Lawrence presents Exhibit 139: An e-mail from co-owner Aubrey McClendon to Bennett after his August 2007 quote about buying the Sonics with the express purpose of moving them to Oklahoma published in the Oklahoma City Business Journal. McClendon was fined $250,000 by the NBA for those comments.

“Clay: Oh no, just read this, have I created problem for you? I am sorry, the truth is we did buy with the hope of moving to OKC. But we did first have an obligation to Seattle to negotiate in good faith, which of course you have done. Does the team need to put out a clarifying press release? Again, I am sorry about this.”

*And Bennett’s response: “Yes sir. we get killed on this one. I don’t mind the PR ugliness (pretty used to it), but I am concerned from a legal standpoint that your statement could perhaps undermine our basic premise of ‘good faith efforts’ when you infer that is was basically never the plan to stay in Seattle. I have lawyers contemplating a response strategy (if any).”

Lawrence points out that Bennett sought to hire a PR firm to help stave the negative publicity and also give the impression that they are giving a “good faith effort.”

*Bennett e-mail to McClendon re: Lisa Levine

Bennett writes: “It is clear that such a strategy will have little or no (quite likely negative) effect in Seattle, but we are attempting to impact the national sports media and most important David (Stern) and the other owners.”

Next Lawrence presents Exhibit 279: A June 15, 2007, letter from Bennett to his fellow PBC owners.

Bennett writes: “We will be playing our games in Seattle next year. While the league was willing to consider a special relocation process, we could not meet their requirements before their June 1 deadline.”

Bennett also wrote to the PBC owners that he has not been in contact with Muckleshoot tribe since February 2007. He also writes to investors that he is considering a renovation of KeyArena but told Lawrence on several occasions that he never considered that.

He referred to former P-I reporter Craig Harris as “yet another reporter covering the story for the P-I.”

And he told Kneeland to “Please stay WAY AWAY from talking about our investment in the building.”

*Exhibit 90: An e-mail from Kneeland to Bennett in Feb. 2007.

“But now it’s time to get moving. … Traditionally in this state, when projects like this have been approved, virtually every detail of the project is contained in the state legislation and King County (with Qwest Field for example).”

The PBC was late in presenting an arena plan.

Bennett also reiterated that the team would face $60 million in losses over the next two seasons – “That’s our expectation.”

Lawrence ends questioning of Bennett.

PBC lawyer Brad Keller re-directs Bennett.

He shows two exhibits that attempt to prove Bennett wanted to work with state and city leaders regarding a new arena.

Lawrence cross-examines and presents Exhibit 771: The Goldman Sachs Study which says a key assumption of the study of the estimated $60 million in losses is that a new lease would be negotiated with the city. It wasn’t.